PKF AvantEdge

Category: IT Audit (Page 9 of 13)

IATA PCI-DSS: Why your SAQs Matter

October 25, 2017 / / 0 Comments

We have had a few discussions among consultants as we progress further into this compliance for our Travel Agency clients. And very often (if not always), the matter always comes down to, “Can we just do an ASV scan and you certify us?”

We have touched this topic many times. ASV scans cannot certify you as PCI compliant. They are just one of the requirements. In fact for some of the SAQs (self Assessment questionnaire), ASV is not even needed.

SAQ A

We’ve gone through the famous SAQ A in our last post. This is basically where no card data is being entered in merchant environment and they basically forward everything over to the payment provider. There is no requirement for ASV. That doesn’t mean it makes it right though. Imagine this scenario: the developer makes a hopeless job at coding their web application. There are two ways SAQ A can be done: redirect or iframe. Let’s recap.

A redirect occurs when the merchant website sends a redirect instruction to the client browser when payment needs to be made. This instructs the client to connect directly to the payment gateway. This instruction could be a simple

onclick="location.href='https://payme.com';"

Or similarly through some javascript with window.location.

The iframe is similar, whereby a ‘child’ window is called directly from the payment gateway and has a window in the main merchant site. Although everytime this occurs, I have nightmares of those old websites with scrolling words, flashing lights and like 5 – 10 frames running at once. Netscape days.

iFrames are simple as well, with the site you want to call embedded within the <iframe src> tags.

So, anyway, back to ASV scans on these merchant sites. Although its not required, if the web application itself is poorly constructed and is compromised, there could be a high possibility that the redirect process itself gets hacked and redirected to another site that looks like the real payment site. You can imagine what happens next. The solution here is to ensure even on the merchant site, this site is developed with good secure coding practices. If ASV is not required, it does not mean you don’t need to run any scans. We would recommend vulnerability scans to still run against it, whether ASV or not. In fact, any web facing system out there should be tested – because if you are out there, it’s open season – anyone can attack it, and it’s up to you to secure it.

Conclusion: No need for ASV, but recommended – if not ASV, at least some security scans.

SAQ B 

Ah, the good old SAQ B. A lot of people misunderstand this for a good reason. Some of our retail clients, or F&B clients insists this is the correct one as they are using card terminals. However, they forget that most of them have their integrated POS systems – specifically because they need to charge an amount like food etc. So their POS systems sends these details to their EDC (Electronic data capture) terminals and the EDC accepts the DIP cards. What happens is that, these EDCs sends back the transaction data and in many cases, they still swipe our cards on the payment system. SAQ B doesn’t qualify here. SAQ B is specific for dialup EDCs directly to acquirer bank. For those using 3g/4g, then these can be considered as well. If you are using WIFI, or internal broadband link then you are out of luck. No SAQ.

Because of the direct point to point or cellular connectivity, ASV is not required (for a good reason!)

Conclusion: No Need ASV – IF you actually qualify for the SAQ that is.

SAQ C-VT

Another difficult SAQ to be eligible for. It has very specific requirements – whereby a web-based browser connectivity to a virtual payment provider who is PCI compliant. I think it really applies more to hospitality or travel agencies. In this case, the question is often asked – what about my broadband IP accessing the net? Because for sure, when I connect to my virtual terminal provider, I am using the internet right, and not leased line or any point to point? So for sure, my broadband has an IP. Just type “whats my ip” in google and it will show. Most of them have dynamic IP addresses as well. In SAQ C-VT there is no requirement to ASV scan.

However, having a dynamic IP and no ASV scan in SAQ C-VT doesn’t mean you still can’t do it. Many routers/firewalls are poorly implemented or poorly patched. We would recommend to do an internal scan on the firewall interface to ensure vulnerabilities are identified. Again, it’s a matter of securing the internet exposed system.

Conclsuion: No Need ASV, but we recommend an internal security scan on the firewall to ensure the box is properly hardened.

So, there you have it. It’s critical to know your SAQs so you know the extent of what NEEDS to be done and what is BETTER to be done than not.

If you need assistance with your PCI-DSS, drop us an email at pcidss@pkfmalaysia.com

PCI-DSS: SAQ A and SAQ A-EP differences in a nutshell

September 14, 2017 / / 0 Comments

OK, we are tackling this wonderful subject for the second time. We have last year touched on this through this post. Unfortunately there are still so many questions on this, that we feel that we need to re-tackle this matter again.

One response a company received regarding this issue from their payment processor was as follows (when merchant requested if they can do SAQ A-EP)

“No. SAQ A-EP you are still not allowed to transmit card data. Please have a look at below snippet taken from the SAQ A-EP AOC:

* All processing of cardholder data, with the exception of the payment page,is entirely outsourced to a PCI DSS validated third-party payment processor.

* Your e-commerce website does not receive cardholder data but controls how consumers, or their cardholder data, are redirected to a PCI DSS validated third-party payment processor.

If you want customers to enter their card data on your website you require the
PCI SAQ D.”

And so, our lengthy reply was as follows:

Your payment processor could be correct (or incorrect) depending on how your page is set up. They are sort of correct in saying you are not allowed to ‘transmit card data’. Because in the SAQ A-EP example, you serve the payment page, and then the card data is transmitted from the user desktop directly to the Payment processor. It is the way the SAQ A-EP is worded that makes it so confusing. You can clearly see that these two statements may sound like they actually conflict each other:

* All processing of cardholder data, with the exception of the payment page,is entirely outsourced to a PCI DSS validated third-party payment processor.

* Your e-commerce website does not receive cardholder data but controls how consumers, or their cardholder data, are redirected to a PCI DSS validated third-party payment processor.

If you read the above, it actually says that, all processing must be outsourced except the payment page (meaning the merchant can host the payment page). The below statement seems to shoot itself in the foot by putting in “The website does not receive cardholder data but controls how cardholder data is ‘redirected’ to a payment processor.” Unfortunately this is not the only place where PCI SSC mucks up its documentation. I can name like a dozen more times they read like its written in Hebrew and translated to English after that.

The only way to really explain is to refer to two documents I will refer to here – first, the “Understanding SAQ document” and the other is from VISA itself, the “Processing Ecommerce Payments Guide” which is what SAQ A vs SAQ A-EP is based on.

Read Page 4 of Understanding SAQ document and tell me how you interpret the table.

Its basically saying the payment page can come from EITHER the merchant website OR a PCI DSS website. As if that’s not enough to clarify, the next page, PCI even gives an example, whereby the “MERCHANT SITE CREATES THE PAYMENT FORM”. So this is clear. The payment form CAN BE IN YOUR WEBSITE.

Apparently they differentiate “receive cardholder data” and creating a payment form doing a direct post to the payment processor. Because in the form, you can send it directly to the processor to process the form posts and input, or you can process it on your own (I used for instance <form action=”PHP_SELF”> which was many years back to reprocess the form input in the same page). The latter example is what they mean by “receive cardholder data”. Not by creating the form itself, but by actually processing what the form is sending when user clicks submit.

You can process it, and then send it to the processor; or you can send it to the processor direct and have them process it.

The first one is SAQ D, the second one is SAQ A-EP. Both occasions the form is still residing on your merchant page. It is what happens after the ‘submit’ is clicked that is important.

If you want to read further, Visa has a better document, the “Processing Ecommerce Payments Guide”. In page 5, the bottom table clarifies a lot.

Basically if you are a merchant 3 and 4 doing either a direct post or javascript, with payment page sitting on your website, then you are eligible for SAQ A-EP.

Lets look at direct post in page 10 and tell me what you are interpreting.

  1. The merchant website CREATES a payment form and SENDS it to the customer computer
  2. The customer computer displays the payment form
  3. The customer enters their card data into the payment form and presses the OK button
  4. The customer computer SENDS the card data to the PSP

The red parts are all done IN YOUR ENVIRONMENT or your customer. Only in step 4 is the card data sent directly to the PSP. So yes, technically, your website is only “serving” the payment page. Once the page is ‘served’, it goes via direct post to the PSP when the submit button is clicked.

SO, in conclusion:  The key thing here is that if your website is directly processing the entries of the forms, then it falls under XML or ‘anything else’ and that’s SAQ D and your processor is correct. This is page 14 of the ecommerce payments guide from VISA. We sometimes see this in merchants who create the form, then for some reason or another prefer to process the information entered into the form and then only sends the information on its way to the processor. They don’t store it, but they process it first before shooting to the processor.

Once more, you can see this by your form. If you have a <form action=”to your own page” or current_page or whatever> then basically you are processing the form before sending to your processor. If your action is to direct to the processor site, then SAQ A-EP can be used.

Hopefully this matter is put to rest!

IATA PCI-DSS: Approaching the BSP Channels

August 26, 2017 / / 0 Comments

First of all, Selamat Hari Merdeka (Independence Day), and congratulations Malaysia for hauling in a record number of SEA Games Gold Medals. So much so that our government has declared next Monday (4th September) as a holiday for….celebrating? I am all great with achievements, but at the risk of sounding like a spoil sport – aren’t we having a wee bit too many holidays? It’s great for morale I suppose, but it’s not so great for business due to the start-stop nature of things and worse, when we are chasing down a compliance deadline for our clients. In fact, approaching the end of the year, the amount of compliance work we are faced with is absolutely daunting.

Which is why it has taken so long for an update on this blog – not because it is low priority, but because we were just chasing so many deadlines in August, and now in September all the way to Christmas. It’s going to be a fun ride to the end of this year for sure.

Now as we approach our March 2018 deadline, we are getting more and more travel agencies calling us up on the IATA PCI-DSS requirements. While these are generally smaller agencies, we have come up with a standard package that addresses specific agencies with specific requirements.

a) No storage of PAN electronically

b) Only for Level 4 merchant levels (less than 1 million traditional transactions and less than 20K Ecommerce transactions)

c) Self signed SAQ by Merchant

d) GDS (Global Distribution System) Provider must be PCI Compliant

These are reasonable conditions for us to consistently approach each agency. See the problem is not so much that travel agencies are complicated – it’s because we have a whole lot of agencies with a very short deadline. We advocate that the whole industry and QSAs, Consultants or PCI experts all work together to get these agencies up to speed.

The first hurdle of cost prohibition is passed. Previously we all thought (based on the wordings) that IATA requires all agencies to have the QSA sign off on section 3c of the SAQ/AoC document, effectively rendering all Level 4 merchants to be Level 2. Obviously that would cost more as Mastercard requires Level 2 assessments from QSAs to be carried out onsite as opposed to remotely. That won’t be feasible due to the amount of agencies. Once it becomes more of a consultancy and advisory as opposed to an audit, it makes more sense. We are not saying QSAs should not get involved – we are saying now agencies have more options on their table – if QSA is affordable then by all means.

Secondly – storage of PAN. This is a real pain. Especially for travel agencies. You may think that you don’t store the PAN, the infamous Primary Account Number, that 16 digit on your credit card (remember, truncated PAN, or what we know as “First Six Last Four” or “Last Four” where the other numbers are X’ed out – this is NOT PAN)- even if you don’t formally store PAN as your process, the fact that you receive PAN in email, or Whatsapp or Skype or Wechat or QQ – anything at all – this translates to PAN being brought into your environment. Unless you are interested to secure your handheld devices and laptops and desktops and email servers – we suggest that you have only formal channels of card acceptance. Via Phone is one way. Through a secure portal is another way.

The problem is compounded due to Credit Card Approval Forms (CAF) or Credit Card Charge Forms (CCCF). These are formal forms either from the agency or from IATA to collect details of transactions, inclusive of credit card. IATA, however, has taken pains to ensure their channel is PCI certifiable and has since removed the requirement for CCCF to contain credit card information in full, as well as providing electronic alternative to CCCF submission via GDS. They are, in essence, securing their channels.

What about travel agencies own CAFs? This is not in any regulated form and even sometimes we see CVV information being required in these forms. This obviously is not allowed, to the genuine surprise of some agencies. Like the CCCF, either these forms need to be secured, or the channels in which information is provided needs to be secured. This is one of the challenges being faced.

Thirdly, the fact that IATA allows for self signed SAQ eases up the pressure of getting an audit in. However, in theory, the agency still needs to go through the same amount of due diligence to ensure they are fully compliant. Audit or no audit, there is no excuse of marking down “Compliant” in the SAQ for a question that you have no clue about. One client actually marked down compliant for “IDS” thinking this meant Internal Distribution System, which he thought was another name for GDS. Seriously. We don’t blame them. We blame the entire technology community for coming up with these acronyms that can sometimes be frustratingly flabbergasting for the general public to understand.

Lastly – the GDS. The ones we have experience with are Sabre, Travelport-Galileo and Amadeus. We come across some older ones but in general, these are the three main ones utilised by travel agencies. All of them as far as we know are PCI-compliant. We only have ever seen the AoC from Travelport. Sabre and Amadeus in turn provides our clients with some weird certificates by QSA or other documentation that is not AoC. Again, it’s just completely irritating when providers give these so called ‘certificates’ and argue with us that this is acceptable to PCI and we have no idea what we are talking about. It’s mind numbingly, teeth-gnashingly frustrating.

The GDS channel is general is secured. As long as credit card information is sent to the GDS mainframe you are more or less done. The problem is whether the desktop client is an actual application or just serves as a web gateway to the mainframe. This is where we are juggling between SAQ C or SAQ C-VT for this channel. We have gone through the Sabre Red Workspace and Galileo Desktop, and either of these cannot function without internet connectivity, and all information traverses through a TLS link to the mainframe of the GDS. We have done packet capture on these applications and while not traditionally considered as ‘web browsers’ in what we are used to, the functionality of it is similiar to a web based client. Even Travelport AoC states that the ‘travelport application client’ is covered under its compliance. In essence, these are virtual terminals in every understanding of the term.

While rare, the internet channel is probably the most straightforward, whereby an SAQ A should sufficiently cover most agencies, since they are utilising a payment gateway and not processing, transmitting or storing credit card information in their own environment.

In summary, the challenges faced mainly by agencies is not so much on the security of BSP or GDS channels, but their own. The credit card forms remain a pain, not so much of the forms itself but the channels in which the forms are sent or received. This forms a very real challenge in securing based on PCI-DSS requirements.

Of course, we have also recently encountered another massive hole in the travel agency PCI program – if you are doing “enhanced data services” with any of the card brands and exporting through a system like Sabre Powersuite, you have another headache in your hands: Clear PAN. We will go into this in a later post. Suffice to say, we have a lot to do, with little time to do so, so it’s time to get cracking.

Drop us an email at pcidss@pkfmalaysia.com and we will see how to get you started with your PCI-DSS program.

 

PCI-DSS IATA: Dissecting the New FAQs

July 13, 2017 / / 0 Comments

A few significant things occurred this week for the IATA PCI-DSS Program, summarised below:

a) We finally have a very clear way forward thanks to some clarifications direct from IATA, and in some parts due to our dogged persistence to get some answers

b) The new FAQs were published end of June and an updated version was done yesterday (11 July) and is now online at http://www.iata.org/services/finance/Documents/pci-dss-faqs.pdf

Firstly, the significant news.

IATA confirmed that Level 3 and Level 4 Merchants do not need a QSA to signoff their AoC/SAQ – which, to many agents, means they can do SAQ on their own, or using their own IT resources, or external consultants (not necessarily QSA, but if you prefer a QSA, by all means, go for it)

IATA also confirmed that they are considering exemptions for agencies that do not have any credit card transactions in their business channels.

These two clarifications address some long running questions agencies had for PCI-DSS. Do they need external consultants, do they need a QSA, do they need any compliance even if they don’t have credit card, etc etc.

Regarding point b) above, there was a quick iteration on the FAQs to clarify a few items. So here are some of the changes between the newest FAQ on 11 July and the one on the 29 June, and we can go through it.

The first 4 FAQ questions remain more or less the same although we do have a nitpick on 1, which is

FAQ#1 Who do I approach for PCI DSS compliance?
We suggest that you contact your acquirer.

Technically, this is correct, however, it’s not exactly complete. Because their (travel agents) acquirer wouldn’t have visibility over the agencies’ channel of credit card via GDS and BSP (or soon to be NGI – the new gen ISS). Acquirers have no idea of this because when the agents uses GDS credit card facility, they are doing in BEHALF of airlines! So even if they were to correspond with the payment brands directly as per FAQ#3, the brands wouldn’t know, nor care about the agency. Because in the GDS-BSP channel, the agency is not the merchant – it is the airline. (lightbulb).

Therefore, it must be the airlines who must be PCI compliant in that channel – however, because they make use of agents, the agents end up having to be compliant as well. But the airlines don’t deal directly with agents for this channel – they have an aggregator in between the agencies and airlines. And yes, this aggregator, this glue that holds everything together is the ecosystem of GDS-BSP/NGI. So if the agency connects to BSP, IATA is the ‘service provider’ offering this service – therefore, it is IATA that needs to clarify the requirements. Which they are doing – so technically FAQ 1 should read

FAQ#1 Who do I approach for PCI DSS compliance?
Yo, it’s us, man! That’s why you’re reading this on an IATA page!

In our clarification request, we didn’t point this out to IATA because our email at that point was already too long. It’s like we were writing the Titanic of emails, and we had to cut some scenes to fit into a readable email size.

Next, FAQ #6 is also important. Only for our own selfish self satisfaction.

FAQ #6 Are compliance certificates recognized for PCI DSS validation?
The answer to this question is no. Any sort of documentation which is not under the authority and validation of PCI DSS, will not be accepted for indicating the company’s compliance with PCI DSS.

And this is what we have been telling clients for YEARS. There is literally no such thing as a certification of compliance as far as PCI is concerned. Yet, everyone wants to see your ‘certificate’ and even go as far as to reject the AoC and RoC and SAQ documents. There is NO SUCH THING as a PCI-DSS compliance certificate. If someone prints a certificate out for you, it cannot bear any logo from the PCI-DSS council because it is not part of PCI. It’s a nice piece of paper to put up in your lobby but that’s it. When we work with our principal QSA, they also have this “certificate”, but we always make it clear that this is only issued as an aesthetic by the QSA and not considered acceptable to the PCI-DSS program formally. You MUST have the AoC and RoC/SAQ combination of documents at least – and also whatever ASV scans etc you might have. So, we would suggest not to go about calling yourself PCI-certified agency – just say you are compliant to PCI is enough. It sounds less sexy but those are more accurate terms to use.

FAQ#7 was corrected to refer to Question 14, instead of Question 13 as previous FAQ stated. Innocent error, of course, no harm done. It doesn’t mean that the writer of the FAQ can’t count.

FAQ#8 was also corrected whereby the previous FAQ stated (emphasis ours)

“The latter has to be completed as a declaration of the results of the service provider’s assessment with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Requirements and Security Assessment Procedures (PCI DSS).”

and now correctly states

The latter has to be completed as a declaration of the results of the merchant (or travel agencies)’s assessment with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Requirements and Security Assessment Procedures (PCI DSS).

Because technically, travel agents are merchants not service provider, so it might be just a copy and paste error.

FAQ#11 Can a QSA that is not listed in a specific country but listed in another country conduct a certification process in the non-listed country?

Originally it stated

“Yes. By definition, Qualified Security Assessor (QSA) companies are independent security organizations that have been qualified by the PCI Security Standards Council to validate an entity’s adherence to PCI DSS.”

This might not be exactly accurate as there are certain regional restrictions based on fees. So, the change became

“Overall speaking, yes. Nevertheless it should be noted that under the QSA program guide, section 6.3.1, there are qualified regions in which QSA can or cannot perform in as noted “QSA Companies are authorized to perform PCI DSS Assessments and QSA-related duties only in the geographic region(s) or country(s) for which they have paid the regional or country fees, and as indicated on the QSA List.”

Once again, that’s more accurate. And there are more words. And it has a quote from an official document from PCI, so it sounds very important.

FAQ#14 has the big change in the new FAQ version compared to the one in June, whereby under level 2 merchant column we have this “note” to clarify that level 2 merchants under Mastercard requires either an onsite ISA or onsite QSA to validate their SAQ. This is what we call “Validated SAQ”, and this is what Mastercard was telling us earlier, that this must be done by the QSA onsite (if they do not have an ISA – which is “internal security assessor”, which is as rare as an albino beluga whale).

FAQ#18 is the one applying to agencies without any credit card transactions. Now you do need to be careful. IATA does state that PCI applies to agencies processing credit card with the IATA GDS-BSP channel or any other channel (including your acquiring bank direct channel). This means if you have an EDC or POS device, or do internet transactions, you STILL need to undergo PCI-DSS. Who you send your AoC/SAQ to is another story, because IATA wouldn’t know much about your POS/EDC channel since you are not their merchant. Technically you send it to whoever you have a merchant account with – your acquirer. But again, your acquirer isn’t even asking for it! So. We suggest that you still do it, and keep it in case someone asks for it. We hear some cynical snorts in the background but we are going to ignore it. Be nice.

FAQ#23 – they decided to completely change this one. The previous answer seemed slightly confusing and in contradiction to FAQ#6 and FAQ#14. Previous FAQ in end June stated:

It should be noted that the third party should be authorized by the PCI DSS Council as a Qualified Security Assessor (QSA) to accept the PCI DSS compliance certificate. The scope shall cover the BSP card sale transactions.

a) Again, as FAQ#6 already confirmed – there is no such thing as a compliance certificate, so technically all compliance certificates issued by whoever, whether QSA, ISA, consultant or the Queen of England should not be accepted as formal documentation of PCI. One more time we hear this certificate of compliance being bandied around like its some sort of Ark of the Covenant, we are going to collectively walk out of our office and lie down on the main road in silent protest.

b) It’s sounds slightly confusing because it seems that this statement is saying a QSA is needed to be involved for all merchant level compliance as well which is contradicting FAQ#14.

To give them credit, their explanation to this was:

“We have had instances in which the agent was providing us with some sort of certificate issued by a third party, under the assumption that the certificate was issued by a QSA therefore we wanted to make clear that in the case an agent were to go this way they should be checking out the authorized QSA list available in PCI DSS council site.”

Yes, completely agreed. But not the certificate part. D@mn it, that’s it! We are headed out tomorrow and lying down on the street in protest!! Watch the news!

Anyways, now the current FAQ#23 reads a different:

Because most large merchants have complex IT environments, many hire a QSA to glean their specialized value for on-site security assessments required by PCI DSS. The QSA also makes it easier to develop and get approval for a compensating control. However, for Level 3 and Level 4, PCI DSS provides the option of doing an internal assessment with an officer sign-off if your acquirer and/or merchant bank agrees. Mid-sized and smaller merchants may use the Self-Assessment Questionnaire found on the PCI SSC Web site to assess themselves.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. It’s lifted from Myth 6 in the famous PCI document at https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/pciscc_ten_common_myths.pdf

It’s certainly reads better, although, it doesn’t really answer the FAQ#23’s questions, but hey who cares? It makes sense!

So anyway, from this we learnt a few things

a) IATA is really keen to be on the ball on this PCI-DSS compliance and has put in effort in getting the right information out to the agencies – kudos to them and really impressed with their management’s response to queries.

b) The industry as a whole is still grappling a lot on PCI-DSS and needs to move forward with the right information and decision.

c) As QSAs, consultants, auditors, advisors or IT experts, we all need to work together to get our clients up to speed with the right information so they can make decisions and we can assist them.

PCI-DSS is never easy. Even those doing SAQ A-EP are having headaches, what more agents going through SAQ D-MER and all its 340++ questions. IATA seems to understand that and has PCI on their agenda.  We are willing to work with anyone on this – we have our clients who are travel agencies, but we also want to help other agencies get up to speed with PCI, what is required, and how to get compliant from the different validation requirements per PCI’s standpoint.

So to summarise this long winded post, from the horses’ mouth themselves:

a) There is no need for QSA involvement in Level 3 and level 4 merchant self assessment questionnaire (SAQ). Merchant officer signoff on section 3b is enough. However (and this is our opinion) if you can get assistance from QSA, ISA, consultants, IT experts, auditors,the Queen of England or even your own internal IT person familiar with PCI, go for it. You’ll need all the help you can get.

b) For those without credit card transactions in ALL channels (not just IATA), consider the exemption in FAQ#18. But please contact IATA on this as you should truly understand what might be the consequences in the future.

OK, that’s it for now. Drop us a note at pcidss@pkfmalaysia.com. We are preparing a complimentary talk on PCI-DSS specific to this travel agency industry soon, so stay tuned!

PCI-DSS – So Why Aren’t We QSA?

June 29, 2017 / / 0 Comments

We have faced this question many times before over the course of 7 years working on PCI-DSS in this region. Many customers have asked us, why haven’t we become QSA (Qualified Security Assessor), considering the amount of PCI work we have been involved in, as well as the PCI-DSS knowledge that we are having?

The answer is simply – we choose not to.

Don’t get me wrong. QSAs certainly have their place in our world, and the fact that we work closely with one, as well as representing them in our country states the importance of having a solid auditing foundation in every project that we go in.

But here are the main reasons why we have decided that being a QSA would hinder us, rather than assist us:

a) Conflict of Interest

This is a huge reason why we maintain our consulting and implementation practice, while choosing not to become an auditor. Our business is not just PCI-DSS. We have a huge chunk of consulting practices in ISMS (ISO27001), training as well as upcoming compliances like SOC1,2, Personal Data Protection Act etc. QSAs and the question conflict of interest has been around for a long time. It is also addressed in Provision 2.2.2 in the PCI-DSS validation requirements for QSA

The QSA must describe the company’s practices to maintain and assure auditor independence, including, but not limited to, practices, organizational structure/separation, and employee education in place to prevent conflicts of
interest in a variety of scenarios, such as the following:

The QSA customer uses products or applications developed or manufactured by the QSA company.
The QSA customer uses products or applications managed or configured by the QSA company.
The description must include details with respect to compliance with the Specified Independence Requirements called out in Section 2.1 above.

The thing is, we do a fair bit of work for our clients – including development of policies, reviewing their security, implementing policies and logging products etc – because we are good at it. Before PCI, we were operational guys, guiding SOCs and NOCs, troubleshooting routers and switches, deploying firewalls and SIEMs etc. We weren’t bred as auditors from the start, so most of us have an inherent instinct to just go in and get the job done for our clients. Now, the problem is once we do wear the auditor’s hat, there are a lot of grey areas. We make this demarcation very distinct in our IT general Controls audit – the moment we implement something for our client, we cannot audit or assess it. We can’t audit our own work. This is not just for PCI, this goes across the board for anything we do.

PCI gets around this by ensuring that the QSA has proper internal segregation – meaning it is generally accepted that policies be put into place that mandate a separation of duties between QSA Auditors and QSAs, or other individuals within a QSA certified company who provide remediation support. So generally, any QSA company should have its consulting group separated from its audit group. Now, PCI-SSC doesn’t specifically state that QSA Companies cannot provide remediative services – after all, if the QSAs know what it takes to pass PCI-DSS wouldn’t they be the best source of knowledge to clients after all (and they often are) – but QSAs need to be very aware that they cannot push their products or services as the only option for compliance. Customers must have the options on the table, the knowledge that there are other options in order for them to make informed decisions.

It’s made trickier due to our DNA as a CPA company. PKF wasn’t born an IT company or a security firm – our roots are in accounting and auditing, and most of our partners hail from Big 4 (PWC, KPMG, EY, Deloitte) and even ex-AA. In fact, I am the only non-audit guy in the partner table and my jokes are often not understood. Due to this background, inherently we have this default position whereby if there are any grey areas, it’s safer to err on the side of caution and not do it unless proper conditions are clear. So while in PCI the arrangement of QSACs providing remediation works are allowed with certain conditions, the very memory of how an 89 year old accounting firm had to surrender its CPA license due to the largest auditing scandal in history still lives on in our industry.

b) We Hate Auditing

Well not really. We are auditors after all! We do have a fair bit of audit and assessments as part of our work. But boy, have you ever been in an audit as an auditor? Everyone just hates you. I remember auditing for a very large BPO company for their IT general controls and software development. The head of software looked like he was going to put live electric eels down our pants halfway through our interview. And we weren’t even antagonistic. Asking for documentation of his software practices was like asking for the what Edward Snowden had. Another company had their head of operations sit with us in the room for 1 hour and throughout the entire session, he refused to answer anything without legal in the same room. It was like we were interrogating him for murder instead of just asking if he had a change management procedure. It’s not all like this of course, we do have excellent clients who are on the same page as us mostly and we do feel the whole auditing process is enriching to our professional lives. Really. Even with that, the follow up audits, the report writing and quality assurance process etc, the evidence gathering and formatting into the proper report, the cycle of obtaining management comments etc. It’s just very taxing on the guys. Report writing takes up a chunk. And guess what – in PCI, a normal Report on Compliance (ROC) for level 1 onsite assessments can stretch up to a thousand pages. Yes. A. Thousand. Or more. It’s like asking us to become Leo Tolstoy and start writing War and Peace every single assignment.

c) Cost vs Benefit

Being a QSA is a great achievement. But there is a huge outlay for the company as well. Not only there are fees you need to pay to become QSA, there are fees you need to pay to operate in particular regions as well. Then you have training fees for your QSAs, yearly maintenance etc. It’s a lot of money to run a QSA company and because of that, you need to get your bacon from all over. For instance, if you have license in Asia-Pacific, then you probably want to tackle the China market. Or else, focus on the SEA region and get your QSAs to fly between countries. Focusing on a single country isn’t going to make up for the cost of maintaining your QSA company, at least from our point of view and our brief calculations. Now because of this, we need to fan out. To fan out, we need to expand the company. To expand, we need to hire and get jobs. I’m all for it, but its a matter of being a big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond. As of this moment, our strategy is not to overstretch ourselves too much and to establish ourselves with the clients we have. It’s not as if PKF is in a hurry to IPO or go anywhere. We’re here for the long run, and in Standard Chartered slogan: We are here for good.

d) Stretching is not fun

We tried it before.

As in not physically, but in terms of a company. We grew our tiny little professional services firm to 16 people once upon a time, with dedicated R&D and Project Management group only to get kicked in the butt by a guy called “No Jobs”. We grew so fast, we didn’t get the sales in to keep up and after the initial projects were done, we were left with a lot of people on the bench playing Pokemon-go. We stretched. But we over did it. It’s not to say we are now not being ambitious. We still are, but we need to be realistic with our goals. If we target to get 10 – 15 tier one customers to keep our benefit more than our cost – how many QSAs do we need to do that? After that, how many consultants to do the remediation work?

Additionally, even if we had 10 QSAs for instance, these guys will be scrambling all over the region doing audits. They won’t have time for operational work. They won’t have time for consulting or providing technical services. They will either be auditing a customer, or they will be on a plane somewhere, or they will be writing or reviewing one of those 1000 pages tomes called the ROC.

e) We Want to Stick with our Customers

The bottom line is this. If we hadn’t found a trusted QSA whom we can work with and who are mostly on the same page as us, we would have gone and gotten our QSA ourselves and went another direction. I think we have enough legs and enough entrenchment in the region and global to do that. But we found a great partner. We found a QSA that we could work with and didn’t do any BS work. We found a QSA that had similar philosophies (although we are still working in synching our concept of deadlines, but hey, that’s like marriage, ain’t it) – and for 7 years, we have been working great together. They like what we do, that they can hands off a lot of the remediation advisory to us and don’t have to get on conference calls all the time or have to fly in and out of our client’s offices for weekly meetings. We like that we can work with our customer, look after our client’s interest and not worry to much about whether we are overstepping our limits as advisors or consultants versus auditors. We can stick with our customers and give them all we have. We can spend a whole day in our customer’s premise working with them without worrying that we need to head off for an audit for 2 weeks in Timbaktu. We don’t have to fly in and out of countries or tell our clients we can only meet 2 weeks later. If you want us within 24 hours, we will have someone there. Best of all, it’s very clear that once auditing starts, we are sitting on the side of our client, and ensuring that our client have what it takes to pass PCI-DSS.

Of course, this is simply our view at this current time. We are well aware of the flowing and ebbing of different forces in our industry and it might come a time whereby this model doesn’t work anymore. But for now, honestly, we just want to get cracking at troubleshooting your Cisco ASA as opposed to writing a War and Peace Novel. Drop us a note at pcidss@pkfmalaysia.com for more information!

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 PKF AvantEdge

— Up ↑